DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US Publication No.: US 2020/0400864 A1 of record) in view of Nagase et al (US Publication No.: US 2013/0181206 A1 of record, “Nagase”) and Mitani et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0116905 A1, “Mitani”).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses a molded diffusion laminated film (Figures 1-5), comprising a laminated product comprising at least:
A substrate film (Figure 2, substrate film 12);
A molded diffusion layer provided on one surface of the substrate film (Figure 2, molded diffusion layer 14); and
A colored layer provided on other surface of the substrate film (Figure 5, colored layer 32); wherein
The molded diffusion layer comprises at least a first resin binder and a light diffusing particle dispersed in the first resin binder, and has a void in the layer (Figure 2, first resin binder 16, light diffusing particle 18; Figure 1(b), the void 14c is the gaps in the resin); and
The colored layer comprises at least a second resin binder and a colorant dispersed in the second resin binder (Paragraph 0053).
Suzuki fails to disclose that the light diffusing particles have an average diameter t of .4um or more, a content ratio of the light diffusing particles is 30% by mass or more and 80% by mass or less based on a total amount of solid content of the molded diffusion layer, and a ratio (T/t) of an average thickness T of the molded diffusion layer to an average particle size t of the light diffusing particle is 3.0 or more.
However, Nagase discloses a similar film where the light diffusing particles have an average diameter t of .4um or more and a ratio (T/t) of an average thickness T of the molded diffusion layer to an average particle size t of the light diffusing particle is 3.0 or more (Nagase, Paragraph 0101 discloses a layer thickness of 10 um and a particle diameter of 2.5um; this would result in a T/t ratio of 4.2, which is greater than 3.0, where the diameter is greater than .4um).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular ratio as disclosed by Nagase. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light diffusion of the film (Nagase, Paragraphs 0101-0102).
Further, Mitani discloses a similar film where a content ratio of the light diffusing particles is 30% by mass or more and 80% by mass or less based on a total amount of solid content of the molded diffusion layer (Mitani, Paragraph 0077 discloses a content ratio of 40% by mass which falls within the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular content ratio as disclosed by Mitani. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light diffusion (Mitani, Paragraph 0077).
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that the film has a haze (according to JIS K7361-1) of 90% or more.
However, Nagase discloses a similar film which has a haze (according to JIS K7361-1) of 90% or more (Nagase, Paragraph 0039).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular haze value as disclosed by Nagase. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of suppressing color change thereby improving brightness (Nagase, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that the average particle diameter t of the light diffusing particles is 0.5 to 10.0 um.
However, Nagase discloses a similar film where the average particle diameter t of the light diffusing particles is 0.5 to 10.0 um (Nagase, Paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular particle size as disclosed by Nagase. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light diffusion of the film (Nagase, Paragraphs 0101-0102).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that the molded diffusion layer has an average thickness T of 1.5 to 30 um.
However, Nagase discloses a similar film where the molded diffusion layer has an average thickness T of 1.5 to 30 um (Nagase, Paragraph 0101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular thickness as disclosed by Nagase. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light diffusion of the film (Nagase, Paragraphs 0101-0102).
Regarding Claim 13, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1, comprising at least an antireflection layer, the colored layer, the substrate film, and the molded diffusion layer in the listed order (Suzuki, Figures 2 and 6, antireflection layer 46, colored layer 32, substrate film 12, molded diffusion layer 14).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani in further view of Lee et al (US Publication No.: US 2021/0403488 A1, “Lee”) and Ito et al (US Publication No.: US 2007/0116916 A1 of record, “Ito”).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that the film has a total light transmittance (according to JIS K7361-1) of 30 to 70%, and the colored layer has a total light transmittance (according to JIS K7361-1) of 60 to 90%.
However, Lee discloses a similar film where the colored layer has a total light transmittance (according to JIS K7361-1) of 60 to 90% (Lee, Paragraph 0132).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular transmittance value as disclosed by Lee. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving high luminance (Lee, Paragraph 0131).
Further, Ito discloses a similar film where the film has a total light transmittance (according to JIS K7361-1) of 30 to 70% (Ito, Paragraph 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular transmittance value as disclosed by Ito. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of reducing uneven luminance (Ito, Paragraph 0084).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani in further view of Kuze (WO 2012/026429 A1, as evidenced by the machine translation, of record).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that a half-value angle H40 at an elongation rate of 40% of the laminated product is within a range of a value equal to or more than a value lower by 25% than a value of a half-value angle HO before elongation and a value equal to or less than a value higher by 25% than the value of a half-value angle HO before elongation, wherein the half-value angle H40 is measured after the laminated product is elongated by 40% relative to the original length and while the laminated product is maintained in the elongated state.
However, Kuze discloses a similar film where a half-value angle H40 at an elongation rate of 40% of the laminated product is within a range of a value equal to or more than a value lower by 25% than a value of a half-value angle HO before elongation and a value equal to or less than a value higher by 25% than the value of a half-value angle HO before elongation, wherein the half-value angle H40 is measured after the laminated product is elongated by 40% relative to the original length and while the laminated product is maintained in the elongated state (Kuze, Page 12, l.45-46 discloses uniaxial stretching where the draw ratio is 2 times or more, which would be twice the length and within the claimed range; Table 1 shows a change in angle to be 1.1% which is in the range of 25% of the pre-stretched film).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular value as disclosed by Kuze. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of improving the diffusion performance of the film (Kuze, Page 12, l.47-49).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani in further view of Kamiyama et al (US Publication No.: US 2010/0177397 A1 of record, “Kamiyama”).
Regarding Claim 5, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that the film has a reflectance at 550 nm measured with the colored layer being interposed of 10.0% or less.
However, Kamiyama discloses a similar film having a reflectance at 550 nm measured with the colored layer being interposed of 10.0% or less (Kamiyama, Paragraph 0659 discloses a reflectance of 2.4%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular reflectance as disclosed by Kamiyama. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving low reflectance (Kamiyama, Paragraph 0659).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani in further view of Watanabe et al (US Publication No.: US 2017/0059982 A1 of record, “Watanabe”).
Regarding Claim 9, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that the colorant comprises carbon black having an average particle size D50 of 0.01 to 2.0 um.
However, Watanabe discloses a similar film where the colorant comprises carbon black having an average particle size D50 of 0.01 to 2.0 um (Watanabe, Paragraph 0134 discloses a particle size of .013um).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular particle size as disclosed by Watanabe. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving a dynamic light scattering method (Watanabe, Paragraph 0134).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose that a content rate of the colorant is 0.1 to 10.0 parts by mass in terms of solid content based on 100 parts by mass of the entire resin component in the colored layer.
However, Watanabe discloses a similar film where a content rate of the colorant is 0.1 to 10.0 parts by mass in terms of solid content based on 100 parts by mass of the entire resin component in the colored layer (Watanabe, Paragraph 0134 discloses a content rate of .3 parts by mass).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to have a particular content rate as disclosed by Watanabe. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of achieving a dynamic light scattering method (Watanabe, Paragraph 0134).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani in further view of Hsiao (US Publication No.: US 2022/0340722 A1 of record).
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 1.
Suzuki fails to disclose the color layer further comprises a matting agent.
However, Hsiao discloses a similar film where the color layer further comprises a matting agent (Hsiao, Paragraph 0057).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to include a matting agent as disclosed by Hsiao. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing precision of particle size and dispersion (Hsiao, Paragraph 0057).
Regarding Claim 12, Suzuki in view of Nagase and Mitani and Hsiao discloses the molded diffusion laminated film according to claim 11.
Suzuki fails to disclose that a content rate of the matting agent is 1 to 15 parts by mass in terms of solid content based on 100 parts by mass of the entire resin component in the colored layer.
However, Hsiao discloses a similar film where a content rate of the matting agent is 1 to 15 parts by mass in terms of solid content based on 100 parts by mass of the entire resin component in the colored layer (Hsiao, Paragraph 0057 discloses a content rate of .5 to 20 parts by mass, which overlaps with the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the film as disclosed by Suzuki to include a matting agent as disclosed by Hsiao. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing precision of particle size and dispersion (Hsiao, Paragraph 0057).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871